Evolution of tsaheylu

[Human No More]

The person in the video and the audience member are both wrong - wrong enough for me to not at all feel bad in dismissing them out of hand and pointing out their errors. Sex is via the normal method . As for no basis, what he meant to say was no comparable instance on Earth (if he was actually intelligent enough to understand the difference, I guess). I wish people would do basic research first. No basis implies it isn't actually possible. There's no known example of spaceborne life in Earth's solar system; yet it's possible with known physics/biology.

The idea of parent/child as an initial one is an interesting idea, but I don't think it fits in with it not being unique to them - it's a question of top-down vs bottom-up approaches; I'd say it's more likely to have originated from an early form of life that had this ability to some degree - existing as individual cells or individual multicellular organisms, yet able to share sensory data, perhaps neurochemical transfer as well, which would give it a clear advantage over other species. OF course, that's not to say that such data transfer doesn't happen; just that it wouldn't be so widespread; it would also seem relatively chance compared to having previously been present in a less refined form.

In addition, I would think that if it was a simple memory transfer that was something approaching routine, they'd be more likely to do it with each other rather than just with one they are mated with, considering the likely efficiency and removing the potential for misinterpretations.

Originally Posted by Clarke

Personally, I agree fully with the opinion of P.Z. Meyers: "If I saw that situation for real, I’d be an intelligent design creationist."

Amazing how suddenly you can lose all respect for someone; I just did.

How is that at all different from the old 'irreducible complexity' BS that creationists like to spout off in all its demonstrably flawed reasoning and incorrect premise? If it was only present in Na'vi and not any other species; then it would be far less plausible, but that isn't the case (and again, as with the typical uninformed hipster, he completely ignores the clear evolutionary line as well as the basic and blindingly obvious fact that the film never went into archaeology and so such a line was never explored anyway). He also answers his own questions, in the same paragraph. It's also got more factual errors than I could count in a quick scan.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Amazing how suddenly you can lose all respect for someone; I just did.

How is that at all different from the old 'irreducible complexity' BS that creationists like to spout off in all its demonstrably flawed reasoning and incorrect premise? If it was only present in Na'vi and not any other species; then it would be far less plausible, but that isn't the case (and again, as with the typical uninformed hipster, he completely ignores the clear evolutionary line as well as the basic and blindingly obvious fact that the film never went into archaeology and so such a line was never explored anyway). He also answers his own questions, in the same paragraph. It's also got more factual errors than I could count in a quick scan.

It adds another layer on to the "irreducible" argument; not only are all these different species sharing the same organ, which - unlike the flagella, eye, and basically every other "example" of IC - is not obviously an optimal way to do things*, but they share the same organ precisely. (Otherwise Na'vi wouldn't be able to talk to ikrans.) This isn't merely, "Oh look, the eye is too complex to have evolved!" It's more like, "Every single species that has eyes at all has precisely the same type, backwards retina and all!" When evolution converges on a solution that doesn't appear to be preferable for any reason*, you've got to either 1) find a reason why it converged on that, and it better be a good one, 2) say, "Something's messed with this!" (But without making the mistake of saying that God is that something. It's far more likely to be aliens. )

*Tsaheylu includes a network protocol, and the possible protocols are so varied that it doesn't make sense for them to converge by evolution alone. After all, if you find an OSI specification on the ground, you expect an engineer, don't you? (This is ignoring the fact that having a queue at all doesn't seem to have any evolutionary benefit for anyone except the Na'vi.)

However, there's a very very sketchy possibility as to why pali can bond with the Na'vi without problems: they're domesticated. They've adapted to the Na'vi tsaheylu's "language" well enough to understand it, possibly by learning it from their domesticated parents, as aurora mentioned. However, this doesn't make sense for the Tree of Souls or ikrans, since respectively, why would anyone try?, and ikrans being caught wild.

Also, you're calling PZ Meyers an ignorant hipster? Does the concept of "expertise" mean nothing?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Clarke

It adds another layer on to the "irreducible" argument; not only are all these different species sharing the same organ, which - unlike the flagella, eye, and basically every other "example" of IC - is not obviously an optimal way to do things*, but they share the same organ precisely. (Otherwise Na'vi wouldn't be able to talk to ikrans.) This isn't merely, "Oh look, the eye is too complex to have evolved!" It's more like, "Every single species that has eyes at all has precisely the same type, backwards retina and all!" When evolution converges on a solution that doesn't appear to be preferable for any reason*, you've got to either 1) find a reason why it converged on that, and it better be a good one, 2) say, "Something's messed with this!" (But without making the mistake of saying that God is that something. It's far more likely to be aliens. )

Yet that's more plausible if every species quotes had a common ancestor with the feature under discussion. As long as it's beneficial or at least non-negative in its impact, it tends to be retained.

*Tsaheylu includes a network protocol, and the possible protocols are so varied that it doesn't make sense for them to converge by evolution alone.

Exactly. I think you just disproved the point you linked to there, not that I want to pollute my brain with anything he's written or anything by anyone else on his site.

However, there's a very very sketchy possibility as to why pali can bond with the Na'vi without problems: they're domesticated. They've adapted to the Na'vi tsaheylu's "language" well enough to understand it, possibly by learning it from their domesticated parents, as aurora mentioned. However, this doesn't make sense for the Tree of Souls or ikrans, since respectively, why would anyone try?, and ikrans being caught wild.

Only if it was "language" as opposed to an actual link on the neurochemical level. Think layer 2, not layer 6.

Also, you're calling PZ Meyers an ignorant hipster? Does the concept of "expertise" mean nothing?

His is mostly false. Of course, it turns out with a little research that freethoughtblogs is actually anything but.